Had Windows 2000, decided to upgrade to WinXP. After nearly finished installing, the XP install would hangup and just freeze after the fourth time the blue animated bar goes across the screen. So I decided to get a brand spanking new HDD and install XP all fresh and clean... same problem. The computer worked OK with Win2K, but now I cant install XP. Locks up everytime after the animated blue bar goes across 4.5 times. I replaced the RAM and disconnected all PCI Cards. The computer is fairly new, Gigabyte MB with Intel 975 Chipset, Antec Case and Power Supply, and an ATI Radeon Video Card.
SO not the one listed in your signiature then!!! I wouldn't go advertising a 486DX these days, nor a 9600 baud modem for that matter!
Hi gizmobob, Yeesh - that's harsh, eh? I used to encounter this sort of thing when Win2K first came out, and people's rigs were not 100% 'compliant' (The secret? Press F5 to install 'regular PC' - the ACPI interface is not 100% compliant) But you should be good; lotsa people probably running WinXP with your mobo... The answer must be found (as with many problems) within your BIOS setup. Old hardware guys from the 90's (and 80's) will tell you, the PC's gotta be solid before it even GETS to the operating system. Things like disabling shadowing, video rom shadow, BIOS shadow, video caching, PnP OS = No, RAM timing, etc etc. BIOS should be setup with hardware carefully arranged for resources, IRQs etc. People will tell you, 'that stuff doesn't matter anymore, with ACPI' because the OS assigns high-IRQs (16, 17, 18...) but you still need to avoid sharing if possible. Disabling Com1, Com2, and (for most people) Lpt1, will free up IRQ 4, 3 and 7 :^) Think that's not important? Watch how quick your PC grabs 'em if there are not enough to go around... Anyway, suppose there is some BIOS setting Win2K didn't mind but XP is choking on - this is all I can think of, so you best check it out. Wim's BIOS is and has been the authority for many years: http://www.wimsbios.com/ You can learn lots on his wonderful website ;^) Probably find lots of weird setup in your BIOS (most peoples are setup wrong). Hope you have a BIOS problem...? Regards
Thanx for the reply OGs... as for Sammorris, the PC listed in my Sig, was my first PC. I find it rather humorous to post the specs of that, instead of the same ol; "my d$ck is bigger than yours" PC Specs. If I posted my specs from one of my 7 PCs I think you would see how feeble your specs are in comparison. But that is for a different thread, another day. I little sence of humor goes a long way, Sammy should go find some. Anyhow, back to the topic at hand... I figured it out. Turns out the MB needed a BIOS Update to allow me to install XP PRO SP2. Dont understand why... I'm guessing it has to do with SP2, cause I'm sure that Gigabyte actually tested and installed XP before releasing this MB. It's not a cheap one either, it's the GA-8KNXP (Rev.2.x) with all the bells and whistles. Thanx again for your Help... and even you too Sammy ;-) You made me laugh with; "I wouldn't go advertising a 486DX these days, nor a 9600 baud modem for that matter!" Like it's OK to advertise the 60MB HDD... LMAO!!!
@ sammorris Hey buddy take it easy I give one thing too gizmobob @ least he can still run everythin he needs on that pc i wouldnt say that bout you or myself for that matter soo to bob more power too u sorry i couldnt help i just couldnt take those wise cracks ciao
i belive you have the same problem that i had and it took 2 burn out cpu (dont ask)and it turn out to be the ram ...try just one ram ...
When don't ask is said, that can mean only one thing: May I? In a less hurried response to gizmobob's earlier post, I don't really post my specs in my signiature to brag, I'm aware there are likely hundreds of members out there at afterdawn who have a system 3 times as powerful as mine. I post them so it isn't necessary to read them all out if i have a query to ask... and I often do... Bar the X800pro which was a gift, I don't really believe in spending thousands just for year-long bragging rights. If I can play every game out at 1280x1024 high detail, that's good enough. I'd like to stress I'm not here to insult anyone, and I class myself as a light-hearted individual. Unfortunately forums have a habit of creating situations where I am misunderstood... sometimes leading to awkward or embarrassing moments. I suppose this is one of them... <sniff> here's some imaginary flowers, I love you really!
LoL ;^) Here's me, playing Doom3 @ 640x480 - but you figure 1280x1024 is 'good enough' eh? That's good then... BTW, the Doom3 looks pretty good! Television viewing is @ 640x480 too, and it stops people (used to TVs) dead in their tracks :^) L8R
Yes, Doom 3 1280x1024 at 'ultra' is juat about the limit. The system still copes though, and it only slightly slows down there because of the processor speed not the GPU's power. Considering it was advised only people with two SLi GPUs could run 'ultra' i'm pretty chuffed. To be fair, i noticed only a small difference between 1024x768 and 1280x1024, despite the fact that the resolution is 66.7% greater, and therefore it doesn't actually surprise me that the game still looks good at 640x480. After all, when final doom came out in the latter half of the mid nineties, it was still 320x240, and I won't have a word said against the original. It looke good despite using 1 twenty-fifth of the pixels as a lot of people play doom 3 at.
Yes, when DoomII for Win95 first came out in ~1996, it played 640x480 fullscreen. (EDIT: it was '96 - I was in GA for Olympics) This of course is nothing compared to JDoom, a D3D/OpenGL port of the original Doom/DoomII/Heretic/Hexen engine. These old games, on a modern PC @ 1024x768 OpenGL, still look fantastic - especially Heretic (we loved that game, not sure why?) And Hexen was amazing in its day, also Quake1 with the OpenGL exe :^) @ gizmobob Glad you got it sorted, 90% problems BIOS related...
